Been reflecting recently on ideas that don't quite come off.
There has been some discussion the ACT-KM list about the Carnival that took place earlier in the year. Normally posters have to display their identities. During the Carnival, posters could call themselves what they wanted. The original idea was to get lurkers to decloak but it didn't really turn out that way. See the message thread for further debate.
And the Book Club seems to have died. Mostly from my neglect.
I think it's important to try things, take risks, and sometimes end up looking foolish.
It's a truism that 70% of projects "fail". But how many should we expect to succeed?
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Expertise Location
So there I was, trying to explain expertise location to a colleague yesterday. And whilst I was doing so, I realised that it all hinges on how you define an expert. Most, internal directories or HR systems assume that expertise is something you can quantify based on qualification, experience, or some mix of both.
However, no one ever really goes looking for an expert. You are looking for someone that can help you solve a problem you have. Your measure of their expertise is their ability to solve your problem. Therefore the robustness of an expertise location system is dependent not on the "experts" and their information held within it but on the kinds of problems its users have that cause them to look for experts.
If the information within the system is reliable, sufficiently detailed and structured in a way aligned with the problems the users have(all big "ifs"), then the system will be perceived as useful. Which implies that the problems users apply it to are homogenous - or at least well understood.
What I suspect happens is that organisations design systems that cover a specific subset of cases (e.g. resource management in consulting firms) and then attempt to cover the rest using social networks. My suspicion is also that they do not do this as well as they could.
None of this is earth-shattering but it leads me to ask - has anyone done any work on HOW users leverage expertise location systems in different organisational situations?
However, no one ever really goes looking for an expert. You are looking for someone that can help you solve a problem you have. Your measure of their expertise is their ability to solve your problem. Therefore the robustness of an expertise location system is dependent not on the "experts" and their information held within it but on the kinds of problems its users have that cause them to look for experts.
If the information within the system is reliable, sufficiently detailed and structured in a way aligned with the problems the users have(all big "ifs"), then the system will be perceived as useful. Which implies that the problems users apply it to are homogenous - or at least well understood.
What I suspect happens is that organisations design systems that cover a specific subset of cases (e.g. resource management in consulting firms) and then attempt to cover the rest using social networks. My suspicion is also that they do not do this as well as they could.
None of this is earth-shattering but it leads me to ask - has anyone done any work on HOW users leverage expertise location systems in different organisational situations?
KM @ Telstra
So we had Alister Webb from Telstra at NSW KM Forum tonight. I like AW - he's an unpretentious speaker who tells it like it is. And the crowd were involved for over an hour.
He talked about how KM tools (simple stuff like AARs) have been packaged for use by project managers and his team's role in disseminating those tools.
Also got to meet Andrew Mitchell (ex-Telstra) now doing funky KM stuff (along with a bunch of other things) here.
He talked about how KM tools (simple stuff like AARs) have been packaged for use by project managers and his team's role in disseminating those tools.
Also got to meet Andrew Mitchell (ex-Telstra) now doing funky KM stuff (along with a bunch of other things) here.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Future NSW KM Forum sessions
Lots of things on the horizon:
- Plently of case studies from actual people in organisations doing KM.
- We want this year to be interactive with people doing stuff. In the past (and for good reason), there's been lots of presenting (talking to) but not enough talking with and doing with. This may not work but it's worth a try.
- Plently of case studies from actual people in organisations doing KM.
- We want this year to be interactive with people doing stuff. In the past (and for good reason), there's been lots of presenting (talking to) but not enough talking with and doing with. This may not work but it's worth a try.
Creative Commons @ NSW KM Forum
OK, the Creative Commons session was actually quite cool. If light on attendance.
Ian Oi is a surprisingly jolly bloke for a lawyer. And he talked well. David Vaile from the Cyberlaw Centre weighed in where necessary and Bruce Badger was a contrary so-and-so. But that was kinda what I'd asked him to be so fair enough. I probably could have been a tougher facilitator but unless I have a specific goal that the group has to reach I tend to err on the side of non-intervention.
One issue that the night left me with was: CC is all very nice but what future does it have? Will people be using this? Will it end up in court? As far as Australia goes, it's deffo too early to say.
Ian Oi is a surprisingly jolly bloke for a lawyer. And he talked well. David Vaile from the Cyberlaw Centre weighed in where necessary and Bruce Badger was a contrary so-and-so. But that was kinda what I'd asked him to be so fair enough. I probably could have been a tougher facilitator but unless I have a specific goal that the group has to reach I tend to err on the side of non-intervention.
One issue that the night left me with was: CC is all very nice but what future does it have? Will people be using this? Will it end up in court? As far as Australia goes, it's deffo too early to say.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Serious Games
The application of gaming & simulation to techniques to the business environment hold quite a fascination for me.
Serious Games is a recent site I've been pointed towards which is a bit light on content.
Virtual Leader is an interesting attempt to apply gaming techniques to managerial decision making. Kinda like Doom but with less weaponary.
More to follow.
Serious Games is a recent site I've been pointed towards which is a bit light on content.
Virtual Leader is an interesting attempt to apply gaming techniques to managerial decision making. Kinda like Doom but with less weaponary.
More to follow.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Last Night: Tales of the Unexpected
The session at ISPI went pretty well. Many thanks to James Lytton-Hitchins for co-facilitating and John Loty for letting us do it in the first place.
John is currently big on Appreciative Inquiry and ISPI will be running some kind of online conference on AI later in the year.
John is currently big on Appreciative Inquiry and ISPI will be running some kind of online conference on AI later in the year.
Creative Commons & Copyright
OK - I've been putting together this at NSW KM Forum for Thursday March 3rd.
We got Ian Oi from Creative Commons, we got the Cyberlaw Centre, we got Bruce Badger from Openskills. It's going to be good.
We got Ian Oi from Creative Commons, we got the Cyberlaw Centre, we got Bruce Badger from Openskills. It's going to be good.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Boot on the Monitor
Shawn on monitoring and then Michael Yafle's response.
I think a distinction needs to be made been reporting and monitoring. There's generally lots of reporting going on in organisations - which I think is what Michael is talking about.
Reporting is about providing numbers around fairly fixed and familiar metrics - e.g. signings, revenue, costs, headcount. You may even implement a balanced scorecard - which is supposed to measure other things than just financials. Of course, implementing a BSC is not the same actually paying attention to what it says.
N.B. Reporting isn't a bad thing. Always be prepared for someone to ask you "How much did you make / spend last year?" - if no one else, it'll be the tax man.
I would suggest that monitoring complex systems is different to straight reporting. What is often missing from reporting is an attempt to Make Sense of the data - unless something is horribly wrong. Hence the role of narrative techniques to support yer numbers.
An example of this is a Community of Practice healthcheck tool I have seen (and subsequently stolen). You have some basic metrics about community involvement (e.g. members joining/leaving/present, email messages posted, conference calls organised) together with some anecdote collection.
Crunch the Numbers. Tell the Story.
I think a distinction needs to be made been reporting and monitoring. There's generally lots of reporting going on in organisations - which I think is what Michael is talking about.
Reporting is about providing numbers around fairly fixed and familiar metrics - e.g. signings, revenue, costs, headcount. You may even implement a balanced scorecard - which is supposed to measure other things than just financials. Of course, implementing a BSC is not the same actually paying attention to what it says.
N.B. Reporting isn't a bad thing. Always be prepared for someone to ask you "How much did you make / spend last year?" - if no one else, it'll be the tax man.
I would suggest that monitoring complex systems is different to straight reporting. What is often missing from reporting is an attempt to Make Sense of the data - unless something is horribly wrong. Hence the role of narrative techniques to support yer numbers.
An example of this is a Community of Practice healthcheck tool I have seen (and subsequently stolen). You have some basic metrics about community involvement (e.g. members joining/leaving/present, email messages posted, conference calls organised) together with some anecdote collection.
Crunch the Numbers. Tell the Story.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Saturday, January 22, 2005
"I am not a number..."
This week, I watched all 17 episodes of The Prisoner - which fits in nicely with the theme of the previous post.
One thought triggered by it: human consciousness can perceive the system in which it is enmeshed - but can never sit outside that system.
There is no escape from The Village.
One thought triggered by it: human consciousness can perceive the system in which it is enmeshed - but can never sit outside that system.
There is no escape from The Village.
Monday, January 17, 2005
Free Will
Shawn asks an intriguing question about free will.
Now the notion of "free will" has been debated since ancient times. It was a fave of theologians.
But it's also a bit of red herring.
It may well be that I am a pawn of my instincts and prejudices.
However, whilst some insight into my motivations may be useful, I still have to make decisions. I am never completely free (except in perhaps an existential sense). But how do I continue to make decisions?
Snowden's point, in my view, is less about "free will" in its classical sense than self-awareness and the "double hermeneutic" when studying human beings - i.e. they can understand they are being studied and change their behaviour accordingly. Hence the Cynefin injunction that every diagnostic is an intervention in the (socially) complex space.
Now the notion of "free will" has been debated since ancient times. It was a fave of theologians.
But it's also a bit of red herring.
It may well be that I am a pawn of my instincts and prejudices.
However, whilst some insight into my motivations may be useful, I still have to make decisions. I am never completely free (except in perhaps an existential sense). But how do I continue to make decisions?
Snowden's point, in my view, is less about "free will" in its classical sense than self-awareness and the "double hermeneutic" when studying human beings - i.e. they can understand they are being studied and change their behaviour accordingly. Hence the Cynefin injunction that every diagnostic is an intervention in the (socially) complex space.
Monday, December 20, 2004
KM Profession
Denham makes some critical comments about KM courses.
I agree with most of his comments. Compared to more established professions (and my comparison here is based on my origins as a librarian), the field is vaguely defined and still unstable - or "dynamic" if you prefer.
On the other hand, many practitioners are woefully ignorant of theories and practices available outside their own immediate organisational experience. The education they require is probably modular and heterogenous - and should be aligned with their day-to-day jobs.
People want bite-sized pieces not 10-course banquets.
I agree with most of his comments. Compared to more established professions (and my comparison here is based on my origins as a librarian), the field is vaguely defined and still unstable - or "dynamic" if you prefer.
On the other hand, many practitioners are woefully ignorant of theories and practices available outside their own immediate organisational experience. The education they require is probably modular and heterogenous - and should be aligned with their day-to-day jobs.
People want bite-sized pieces not 10-course banquets.
Monday, December 13, 2004
Theories of KM
Euan Semple's theory of KM is obviously the basis of every IT helpdesk:
"You can't log into the network? Well, why don't you go to our intranet site..."
"You can't log into the network? Well, why don't you go to our intranet site..."
Sensitive, New Age...
Shawn on SNA
SNA gets noted as a 'new' technique. Within sociology it's been around for over 30 years.
In my limited experience, SNA is a 'microscope slide' technique:
- You get a lot of detail but it's time-consuming to do.
- It requires care in interpretation.
- It's just one slice of something larger fixed at one moment in time.
Its main benefits:
- It provides a visual map of social relations (and most people are 'visual' thinkers if you believe the research).
- The map is seen as objective and therefore can be made consensual.
Oh and InFlow is a whole world of fun to use...
SNA gets noted as a 'new' technique. Within sociology it's been around for over 30 years.
In my limited experience, SNA is a 'microscope slide' technique:
- You get a lot of detail but it's time-consuming to do.
- It requires care in interpretation.
- It's just one slice of something larger fixed at one moment in time.
Its main benefits:
- It provides a visual map of social relations (and most people are 'visual' thinkers if you believe the research).
- The map is seen as objective and therefore can be made consensual.
Oh and InFlow is a whole world of fun to use...
Thursday, December 09, 2004
It’s a slang! It’s American! He’s a donut!
Denham Gray posts about an Etienne "CoP" Wenger article on KM as a donut. Which reminds me irresistably of an Eddie Izzard routine about JFK (which is where the title of this post originates).
The Wenger article is interesting (as you'd expect). It presents a steady-state model of organisational learning that has much of value - not least putting the practitioner (i.e. the guy or gal out there doing the grunt work) at the centre of things.
More posts on communities soon.
The Wenger article is interesting (as you'd expect). It presents a steady-state model of organisational learning that has much of value - not least putting the practitioner (i.e. the guy or gal out there doing the grunt work) at the centre of things.
More posts on communities soon.
The Kevin Centre
Dave Snowden is in town to serve up some delicious Cynefin goodies to unsuspecting learners, supported by Shawn Callahan and Viv Read via the good offices of SOLA.
Last night, he promised that the Cynefin website would be updated. I'm dubious - but what can you expect from a man with a wife and 5 onto-epistemological domains to support?
Last night, he promised that the Cynefin website would be updated. I'm dubious - but what can you expect from a man with a wife and 5 onto-epistemological domains to support?
MAKE mine a septuple / The Usual Suspects
The global MAKE awards have just been dished out.
What are awards all about? Well, publicity basically. Either for those receiving or giving the award. Now given that the overall winner was a company with a marketing budget of many millions, it's not really for those receiving.
So who else? Well, Rory Chase's KNOW Network. Which is fair enough.
And Knowledge Management? Well, maybe. A couple of things worry me:
1. The top 20 are pretty much Fortune 500. And they are voted for by representatives from... Fortune 500 companies (as well as KM and IC experts). So back-slapping all round then.
2. Since 1999 there has been a mean of 3 new entrants into the top 20 per year. Which means that if everything was equal, you'd expect the 2004 list to be completely different to the 1998 list. 11 of the 1998 are in the 2004. Over half.
It's the same faces, the same stories. No offence to the people at these organisations - I'm sure they do great work. But I'm getting bored.
Xerox, BP, Buckman, IBM, Accenture - take a break. Put your feet up. Go on holiday. Can we have some new tunes please?
What are awards all about? Well, publicity basically. Either for those receiving or giving the award. Now given that the overall winner was a company with a marketing budget of many millions, it's not really for those receiving.
So who else? Well, Rory Chase's KNOW Network. Which is fair enough.
And Knowledge Management? Well, maybe. A couple of things worry me:
1. The top 20 are pretty much Fortune 500. And they are voted for by representatives from... Fortune 500 companies (as well as KM and IC experts). So back-slapping all round then.
2. Since 1999 there has been a mean of 3 new entrants into the top 20 per year. Which means that if everything was equal, you'd expect the 2004 list to be completely different to the 1998 list. 11 of the 1998 are in the 2004. Over half.
It's the same faces, the same stories. No offence to the people at these organisations - I'm sure they do great work. But I'm getting bored.
Xerox, BP, Buckman, IBM, Accenture - take a break. Put your feet up. Go on holiday. Can we have some new tunes please?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
